The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development talks about a ‘deliberative wave' – a noticeable increase in public authorities at all levels of governance commissioning citizens' assemblies, citizens' juries and other deliberative processes.
At the crest of that deliberative wave are assemblies and juries focused on aspects of the climate and nature crises. More than 200 have taken place in the last five years, the vast majority across Europe, with a quarter being commissioned in the UK.
But the evidence shows that while the recommendations of assemblies are well considered and could help shape more robust policy, too often they fail to land. Why is this?
I try to make sense of this wave of assemblies in my new open access book, We Need to Talk About Climate: How Citizens' Assemblies Can Help Us Solve the Climate Crisis. The book is based on the first three years of chairing the Knowledge Network on Climate Assemblies that aims to improve the commissioning, design, implementation and impact of climate assemblies. While focused on climate, the lessons we have learned are relevant to all citizens' assemblies.
These are not the polarised extremes that too often sway the actions of public authorities. Deliberation has a very different quality from the often hostile interactions that characterise public meetings and social media. Instead, assembly members hear balanced evidence and have the opportunity to exchange ideas and arguments before collaborating on a series of recommendations.
Those who have experienced assemblies testify to the power of these spaces.
Sceptical politicians and public officials who attend assemblies and meet members, quickly come to realise the collective intelligence of everyday citizens is a valuable input into decision-making.
But the evidence shows that while the recommendations of assemblies are well considered and could help shape more robust policy, too often they fail to land. Why is this?
The simple answer is that so much time, resources and energy is spent on organising the assembly itself – ensuring the best possible experience for citizens – that the relationship with the local authority and its decision-making processes is neglected.
First, the question asked of the assembly does not always relate to a specific set of decisions about to be made by an authority. Is the relevant policy process open and ready for input? On a number of occasions assemblies have taken place just after a new policy or strategy has been agreed. Disastrous timing.
This does not mean assemblies should only be run when they are tied to a particular decision-making process. Sometimes it is important to open up a policy area with a broad question. And sometimes it makes sense to empower citizens to set the agenda and focus on the issues they find most compelling
The second element is the failure of authorities to prepare to receive recommendations from citizens.
One story is where the first a public official knew about an assembly was when its recommendations landed on their desk. They were not received in the best spirit.
Too often assemblies are commissioned by enthusiastic politicians and public officials who have not done the necessary work to ensure their colleagues are willing to give a considered response to the citizens' recommendations. Too often an assembly will be organised by a department or ministry where the results require others in the authority to respond – but those other politicians and officials feel no connection to the process.
And too often, an assembly ends, and it is not clear who within the public authority has the responsibility to take the recommendations forward to ensure they are given a fair hearing across the authority.
For citizens' assemblies to be effective requires political and administrative work well beyond just organising the assembly. If this is not done, it is not only a waste of resources, but it can do serious damage to democracy and trust as those citizens who have invested their time and energy into the process become disillusioned.
Those authorities where citizens' assemblies have had meaningful impacts are those that have not only invested in the assembly, but also into preparing the authority to receive the recommendations. Often this has meant continuing support and resourcing for assembly members after the process. They are the best advocates for their work.
Graham Smith is professor of politics at the University of Westminster and chair of the Knowledge Network on Climate Assemblies (KNOCA)
